San Francisco’s police union says a city bakery chain has a “bigoted” policy of not serving uniformed cops.
The San Francisco Police Officers Assn. wrote in a social media post last week that Reem’s California “will not serve anyone armed and in uniform” and that includes “members of the U.S. Military.” The union is demanding that the chain “own” its policy.
Reem’s says, however, its policy isn’t against serving armed police officers. It’s against allowing guns inside its businesses.
I like the idea of a new police force but what you are describing sounds like inanity. You had me until you make the punishments 10x the crime. What happens when someone make a honest mistake? Because they had a off day their lives are ruined. Even in this fantasy where the constitution no longer exists who would sign up for that job? You will have to pay $500k a year and have genius lawyer monks doing the job.
If I have an off day at work, someone gets the wrong email. If a cop has an off day at work, someone’s dad gets killed. Do you not believe LEOs should be held to a higher standard of accountability? Anyone given the power to kill on behalf of the state should be held to a higher standard than the general population.
Even if I did believe that was a good thing it’s against the constitution to have 2 separate punishments. That said I think cops who fuck up should be tried in court like any other citizen. If you want change go apply to a department.
If you actually think police will change their ways of their own volition you’re truly living in a different reality. Change will come to law enforcement from the outside, not from within; they’re too entrenched in their avenues of power and abuse to have any interest in legitimate reform.
That’s the risk you take on when you’re given powers nobody else in our society has. Police can literally kill people on purpose, something that nobody else is allowed to do. Police can imprison or detain people, once again something nobody else is allowed to do. Police can take your property, once again, something nobody else can do. They can invade your privacy, and even though there are some checks on that power they’re extremely limited. Every time an officer decides to exercise their powers to violate someones rights, whether they’re justified in doing it or not, should be a weighty decision that comes with heavy consequences if they choose wrong. If a cop is worried about being punished he could always take the safe approach of you know, just not violating someones rights. You’d see a hell of a lot fewer instances of cops immediately going for their gun as their first last and final solution to literally all problems if getting that wrong actually had dire consequences for them instead of just some annoying paperwork and having to sit through interviews.